Shorin Ryuu

That's fine. And I did not mean to come off as sounding mean. Sadly, your question is not only asked by beginners though. In many cases, people that have been training long enough to know better (well, there is a difference between "training" and "getting better") state that because those stances aren't in kumite, there is no use for them. My response to them is the same as I gave for you... One thing I would suggest is asking questions like that before/during/after class. It shows a willingness to learn. Sometimes it does help to think about it somewhat deeply before you do. They might just turn it around on you and say "I don't know. What do YOU think of stances in kumite?" (This is a trick used by teachers and seniors either to force the student to think for themselves or to get out of answering the question).

This is a fairly common question. The term karate in use today comes from "kara" (empty) and "te" (hand). This was actually only officially adopted in 1936 in order to provide a more appealing name and simply just to adopt a common name for it in the first place. Before then, it could have been called karate (kara actually referring to China) although the first mention of "karate" in a published text was in the early 1900s, I believe. A much more common way of pronouncing it was toude/toute/toudi ("tou" being the same character as "kara") depending on whether you were speaking Okinawan or Japanese. Further still, it could have just been referred to as ti (te). Usually, the more Chinese influenced styles were referred to as toudi, although this wasn't necessarily a strict rule, either. Plus Chinese influence came in many waves, so much of that is even subjective. ANYWAY. In the proverbial "old days", many masters trained both in empty hand and weapons training. The reason for this is simple. Most of the people who actually did the main bulk of martial arts were part of the warrior nobility. It really wasn't until relatively recently, with the abolishment of the nobility class in the late 1800s and the introduction of karate into the school system in the early 1900s that Okinawan "karate" has been "open to the public", so to speak. But back on topic, these people did weaponry because they were nobility, royal bodyguards, merchants/merchant guards, constables or other law enforcement, etc. I and others have mentioned how relatively new the concept of "styles" in general is on Okinawa, although it is very much a hard reality in the present day. In those old days, masters shared students or traveled to other places and trained/shared knowledge and all that. The weapons development was much the same way. You had family traditions as well as some village traditions. Obviously weapons like the bo had many practitioners among nobility and commoners alike. Weapons like the sword or the sai were far less common amongst regular folk. Nowadays, there are schools dedicated solely to empty hand, solely to weaponry, or schools that include both, either incorporating their own weaponry systems or borrowing from established weaponry schools. The efforts of such weapons greats like Taira preserved and formalized many weapons kata all around Okinawa. Other schools like Yamani focus on the bo. Regardless, the point is that "empty hand" is a new name and really has no bearing on what true "traditional" "karate" is. The use of weapons was always and still is fairly common.

As a high school kid, you're going to pretty much have to resign yourself to relatively unskilled labor, unless you possess some unique talent that's quite marketable. That being said, you should probably just look in the newspaper AND walk around town. Figure out what you want to do in general (manual labor, food service, etc.) and ask around. Some places don't even list in the newspaper because they are more selective. Call around, show some initiative. You ARE looking for a job, meaning you better get used to doing WORK. It almost never simply falls into your lap, you're going to have to be proactive (meaning you can't always rely on the comfort of surfing the web for everything). You live in San Francisco, so finding large areas of food services shouldn't be a problem.

The perceived lack of utility derived from stances in kumite can be boiled down to one main thing: the limited nature of kumite. By that, I mean that the reason behind many of the more "esoteric" stances (a term I use rather facetiously here) does not exist because there are so many principles, techniques, attacks and defenses that you will not do in kumite, mainly because they are against the rules or will not be given an opportunity because they usually are in response to things that are also against the rules. For the record, we don't use ridiculously long, deep front stances in our kata either, let alone our kumite because I don't see too much of a need for them. But back to answering your question. What did I mean? Well, in the first place, if your kumite does not incoporate grappling or are even allows you to hold an opponent, then that eliminates the need and opportunity for whole sectors of the fighting paradigm, let alone stances. Much of the weight shifting (done to your center of gravity or your opponent's) is not needed simply because you're not manipulating his balance to take him down, you might just be doing it to hit him. If you're not going to throw the opponent or take him down and he isn't going to do the same to you, then there isn't necessarily a need for many of the deep stances that you see. Many of the stances are responses to situations that simply are off-limits in kumite. No, not built-in automatic, carved-in-stone responses to specific, narrow techniques, but conceptual responses to certain circumstances regardless of the actual technique. Also, if you are not allowed to attack below the belt, than another important function of specific stances is also eliminated (tying along with the first point) which is to attack specifically your opponent's base (read: the legs). Many stances are actually manipulations or outright attacks against your opponent's legs, which are against the rules, are also things you will not see. This goes beyond simple sweeps or things like that. As a combination of points one and two, another function of these stances you won't see in kumite is after you've taken the opponent down, the legs are applying a lock or otherwise attacking/controlling the opponent when he is on the ground as well. Once again, you won't see this if you aren't going that far. Lastly (for now), I use various stances in kumite. Even in straight out punching/kick/block only kumite (which I do with very little frequency due to what I perceive to be its limited training utility), there are various stances you can employ to aid your movement and positioning and manipulate that of your opponent's. This holds true even if you are only kicking, punching and blocking without grabbing and only above the belt. If you really do need me to cite a laundry list of things you can do with regards to stances both in more "complete" kumite and rather "limited" kumite, then perhaps you need to talk to your instructor or senior students in your dojo. They should be able to tell you. You will have to forgive me if I sound a bit critical here. If your interpretation of the utility of stances is limited basically to "If he and I squared off a couple feet from one another, what stance would be practical now in this kumite match?", then you are woefully undeveloped in your analysis of what stances actually are. Saying the utility of stances is limited because they aren't found in kumite is looking at it completely backwards. It is because kumite is limited in and of itself that you won't find as many of the stances in it.

Flips and handsprings look really cool. However, most martial arts schools do not teach or require them due to their lack of practicality. I suppose they help flexibility and whatnot. I won't say anything about your school or those that do have them as required techniques, but most schools do not.

Hm. I'd love to check out his school.

Forgive me if I am blunt. But have you actually tried looking for such things on google.com first?

You have to forgive us if we are skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in order to be believed.

The biggest obstacle to learning Japanese by yourself is that you will not have a chance to speak it with others that understand what you are saying. My recommendation is to look up Japanese cultural organizations in your area and get in touch with a Japanese speaker (preferably a Japanese) and they can direct you towards better resources or even serve as a conversation partner. They usually appreciate people trying to learn the language. As far as extra stuff or books, there's plenty of things online you can find. Just type in "Japanese" and "grammar" and "basic" to get you started.

Well...there's so many chinese characters used in Japanese but only so many syllables, so there's always bound to be duplicates (and many of them). One is the example you cite, where "shi" (a way to pronounce the character for "four") is also a way to pronounce the character for "death". I've heard an explanation where as more of a superstition, they tend to use "yon" rather than "shi" (although that's pretty much now more of a customary practice, anyway). But if you said "shidan", people would probably smile politely but understand what you said. In addition, I believe "four" is the only character that has the pronunciation "yon", so when you use it, it is usually pretty clear and unequivocal that you mean "four". What's more, there's probably around 3 different words that use the pronunciation "shidan", where as far as I know, "yondan" only means "4th rank".

Most kata you seen on the internet are either purposely abbreviated or changed versions of a system's "true" way of doing them or just clips rather than the whole thing.

The Romans did trade with the Chinese and vice versa. It's in the history books (I believe they've found records and other things, like Roman coins in China).

This is an old topic, but I've been thinking about it quite a bit, recently. I think it is important that a teacher simply does not say everything up front (regardless of the student's level). Sometimes, I feel that the student should have to find things out for themselves. It would be the difference between being handed a formula, an equation for solving some sort of a problem. If you are handed the formula, you can solve the problem pretty well and easily. If, however, you are forced to derive the formula mathematically, you have a deeper understanding of what it is you are learning. Obviously, I don't support having to derive every single formula out there. Sometimes, that would be wasted effort or too time consuming. But sometimes, I think it is necessary to learn, rather than to copy. Anyone who's familiar with my posts knows I just LOVE sharing "knowledge" (whether it is asked for or not), and I've actually considered reining myself in. Fortunately, I don't know that much or that much well, so I probably will be okay even in if I said everything I know, since it wouldn't be revealing too much. For that matter, you've got people here that have more experience then I've got years on this good Earth (Yeah, old fogies like you, Shorinryu Sensei). And this is a forum for sharing ideas, afterall. But sometimes, I think it's good for the student to look inwards before always relying outwards for their answers and growth. That being said, I don't plan on shutting up any time soon.

Actually, I do believe the sai to be an offensive weapon. Certainly any weapon has to have the capability to block, otherwise you will have to be extremely good at dodging and manuevering (which you should be, but is only one layer of defense). A "short" weapon like the sai has to first block/parry/control and move in to be effective. Certainly relying upon it to block is handy, but you can't simply play a game of block and avoid forever. It's short nature makes a game like that self-defeating. To gain any sort of advantage, you have to move in close. Once you do, it takes relatively very little power to seriously hurt or kill someone with the sai. Certainly it can be used to block and disable without killing, like many weapons. I still do consider it to be an offensive weapon though, simply because by it's nature (size, structural setup), it has to attack in order to be effective in ending a fight. I wouldn't say "purely offensive" because there are relatively few weapons that are purely offensive. It certainly is possible to have grappling techniques with the sai, as in with many weapons. However, I believe it to be better suited for striking in various ways. With a sai, it's harder to simply "knock someone out" without the risk of hurting them seriously or killing them. Sure, you can disable a person without killing them. But it is just as easy to kill them as well with a weapon like the sai. I'm not getting into an ethical debate, just talking about the characteristics of the weapon itself.

why do you think so? Do you not think that too much kata can produce similar bad habits? I thnk sparring is good to produce good reaction times and unpredictability. However, these things can be reproduced in drills as well. To me, the worst aspect of sparring, whether it is point sparring, continuous, or even "full contact" to include the takedown is that the techniques you will be using most often to hit your opponent or grab or takedown are not necessarily the ones you will use on the street. In effect, you are training your body over time to "pull punches" to "hold back on your throws" and to only use relatively "benign" (although these can hurt or injure) techniques. Certainly you don't want to always injure the other guy on the street, but too much of this sparring training will create an artificial construct within your mind in regards to actual fighting. I'm not saying you can't spar. There are those better than me that do spar somewhat regularly. I did mention I thought it was okay to do it every once in a while (I much prefer yakusoku kumite or drills myself, but like to make sure I still "got it" by throwing some elements of randomness in there). However, free point sparring is in my mind completely worthless, as usually those who win are in such a bad position that they would get destroyed on the street if the fight continued. Free sparring without the takedown is in my mind, of only very, very limited value. It operates on the whole understanding that both opponents will not elevate to the next level, which is closing in and grappling. Again, it is good for reaction time and perhaps basic combinations, but very limited. Free sparring that includes grappling and the takedown is somewhat better, in my opinion. If you have to do one type of sparring, I would support this one. Since it is walking a line between what you would do in a fight and how not to hurt your opponent, it perhaps reflects most accurately a "real fight", at least in comparison to the other methods. But, once again, you have to hold back too much since you are doing it at high speeds. The way I see it, most of Shorin Ryu takedowns center on three main things: The head/neck, the arms/shoulder and the legs/knees. That's fairly common sense. The one I would argue you would have the most success in manipulating once you get contact (the head/neck) is the one you have to hold back the most in a sparring situation. Many people would say "Yeah, but if you know what you are doing, you can do it at high speeds without getting hurt." But even those that really "know what they are doing" must hold back so much that they are cheating their technique. Performing kata is the only way that these moves can be done to completion because the opponent is not there to be seriously injured or killed. Someone mentioned about how free sparring simply wasn't being done correctly, how people would often sustain injuries or those kinds of things. I don't think that is the correct way of doing them. Sustaining injury while training is never good, I don't care what anyone says. All that means is that someone crossed the line, so to speak, and broke the understanding between the two people. In sparring, it is too easy to hurt the opponent. You never want to injure your partner, it's self defeating on many levels. Therefore, sparring training has to hold back, otherwise you can't do it very often. This holding back, in turn, makes it incapable of being the dominant training tool for fighting. It can be a tool, just not the dominant one and certainly not one used with heavy regularity. Perhaps some of this boils down to my overall philsophy on fighting itself. I'm not ever going to use my skills unless I accept the possibility of hurting the other person. Simply controlling or otherwise avoiding an attack is relatively much easier than focusing entirely on attacking the person or rendering them incapable without hurting them. By controlling an attack, I mean nullifying rather than locking up the opponent. Again, since I will only use my skills when I have to accept the possibility of injuring my opponent, I won't have to worry about holding back, which is exactly what free sparring develops in a person. We hear about the vaunted "old days" and how little Okinawan masters actually sparred. People like Motobu Choki who went out and fought to get real world experience actually fought, not sparred. Other masters simply used their skills for whatever reason (law enforcement, protection, whatever), fighting and sometimes killing those people they faced. The pioneering of protected free sparring was an attempt to bring in the aspect of real fighting that most people don't ever have to face in the more civilized parts of the world. I think some of it is a good innovation, but is relied upon too heavily by many. I'm not going to say kata and sparring are two equal halves of one whole, because frankly, I don't believe sparring deserves to be an equal half.

I can't do the splits. I'm pretty flexible, but I can't seem to go that "extra mile". Fortunately, there really isn't any need to, especially in Okinawan karate. Flexibility is always a bonus. However, you must never make the mistake of making a metric (i.e., the splits) an actual goal. Certainly improvement is always desired, but doing the actual splits isn't going to help you one whit in a fight. Perhaps what I am trying to say is, there are better things you need to worry about.

Last I heard, Gambit is pretty good at throwing cards. Say ShogunMisha, where do you hail from? I'd like to get cards thrown at me. If nothing else, I can show off a cut given to me by someone throwing cards. As far as flesh being tougher than hardwood, it isn't. But the elasticity of the skin may actually help it be more resistant to card throwing. I'll be honest and say I haven't done too much research in that area of weaponry...

Perhaps learning how to grapple would be in order. If you are heavily reliant on kicks, especially your high kicks, then you are in serious danger of your opponent simply closing in. If you really insist on kicking but you don't want to damage his legs, kick him on the hip or waist in combination with getting out of the way and warding him off with your hands. Hitting him there will steal his balance and possibly his breathing. That should give you plenty of time to run away or close in to use infighting techniques or whatever you choose to do. I think legs are extremely useful. However, I don't ever view them as some magic bullet to instantly end a fight, especially one targeted towards the head or neck. Unless you're talking about attacking someone's leg or knee, that is.

That's a pretty informative post, Mr. Mike. However (and I only say this because I saw Troy with Skeptic2004 and we pondered this before), I think he was focusing more specifically on the sword/spear and shield aspect of it. While it was obviously movie-fu, as he put it, there were a few instances in the fight scenes (I've only seen it once and it was a while ago) where we both kind of thought "wow, that's actually practical" or "wow, that looks somewhat like a legitimate technique". Since he is an actor, maybe he's just being a good mirror or he's posing rather well. And Skeptic2004, feel free to smack me upside the head with a Greek helmet if I'm wrong.

I used to do that for a while in high school. I wore 5 pounds on each leg all day (and night...I was kind of young and overzealous) except for showering and training. I usually wore long pants since they did kind of stick out otherwise... It did help in strengthening my ankles quite a bit as well as overall leg strength. But (pardon the pun), it got to be a drag for several reasons after about 7-8 months.

If the question is kata or sparring, then I'll choose kata every time. Sparring is a useful tool which I feel should be done every once in a while, but too much of it builds bad habits in my mind.

For a while, I flirted with taking karate, iaido and jujitsu all at once. However, after a while, I realized that although the techniques were different, most of the principles were the same. I could learn new techniques, but it really wasn't economical for me to continue taking jujitsu in addition to karate. As far as iaido goes, it was just too much extra for me to tack on. The obvious techniques and handling of the sword were different in many ways than some of my other weapons (to varying degrees), but the actual principles themselves were not that different. It was fun to regularly go see how others do things, but I didn't gain much from it skill-wise (and there were some things I had disagreements with in terms of principles).

You can block those fun noodles with plastic and foam. You know, those big foam tubes you play in the pool with. Thanks for clearing up the legal question, harleyt26.

Sure. I won't stop him. He can learn basic hand movements and switches. He probably will learn them incorrectly though. Are you for sure you can't use them unless you're certified? Maybe you should look up the law. That does sound a bit strange...

Um, I don't think he was being serious.